Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

Comment away on Obama's Afghanistan speech here.  My quick hits:

  • Well, everyone who's been waiting for Obama to do something unpopular to demonstrate his leadership skills should shut up for a while;
  • My favorite bit was the Eisenhower quote: "As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests.  And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces.  I don't have the luxury of committing to just one.  Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, 'Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration:  the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.'"
  • To that end, my reaction to the proposed policy is very similar to my reaction to Bill Belichick's much-discussed fourth down play a few years back.  At the end of that post, I wrote:

[I]t's possible to defend Belichick's call on fourth down as the rational, utility-maximizing decision, but conclude that he committed a series of small blunders that got the Patriots to the point where they had to convert a high-risk, high-reward play.  In other words, sometimes the criticized decision might be the right one to make, but the decisions that structured the controversial choice might not have been. 

... Looking at the Obama administration's foreign policy, which move echoes Belichick's play-calling?

I think I have my answer now. 

This is a 51-49 decision, and I'm far from confident that he's doing the right thing.  If that Eisenhower quote is any indication, however, I'm pretty sure that the decision-making process was solid. 

Developing....

 

GREGSANDERS

4:53 AM ET

December 2, 2009

Possibly the basis of a sustainable strategy

I tend to think the people who talk about 10 year occupations are evaluating the greatest chance of success without weighing it against other national programs.

Your 51-49 decision seems right, but I'm greatly reassured by the presence of an announced withdrawal initiation date (with caveats of course). I think a credible end in sight is key for allied support, public support, and the acquiesce of Afghan nationalist who aren't ideologically aligned with the Taliban.

In game theory terms, I can believe it may lower the probability of clear-cut victory, but I think it substantially reduced the cost of a draw by not destroying public support for post-occupation economic or air support or the like. It also is a hedge against a Pyhrric victory. It seems quite plausible to me that there's ways we could win in Afghanistan that were so costly to as to be a net-negative to our national interests.

 

BLUE13326

7:57 AM ET

December 2, 2009

I think it was kind of

I think it was kind of brilliant politically--he lowered expectations so much that those on the right are just happy he's sending extra troops, and those on the left are just happy it's not an open-ended commitment.

 

ERIC C

9:19 PM ET

December 2, 2009

The whole thing

felt really inevitable to me.

On the open thread, I didn't check this yesterday, but I'm sort of dissapointed there wasn't more discussion, since this is like the super bowl of foreign policy events.

Eric C

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More